This is a continuation of a different thread...please see Irritation with the Skill Point System thread for history.
I'll reiterate my point here and respond to the Scribe.
This discussion is about how an individual or group approaches the game of D&D. (correct me if i'm wrong) Scribe suggests that the mindset of each player and DM should be that the PCs that adventure in the DM's world need be suited to overcome any challenge that could be set forth for the party. This would typically be addressed by creating a traditional "power party" ... whatever you think the makeup of that party should be (another discussion).
My contention, to the smaller point of the skill point system but the broader aspect of how one (and a group) approaches the game, is that tabletop gaming is not set up like a video game that dictates a power party to achieve success. That it doesn't matter what the makeup of PCs is in a tabletop game, because the DM should be either creating or modifying an adventure to challenge his/her specific party.
Scribe asks: "Why would a group want to limit the options for types of encounters a DM can throw at them? If a DM doesn't have time to restructure a module for an unbalanced party, I would also hate to see the results, so why would they do that?"
I'm suggesting that these are the wrong questions that gamers should be asking about their game. It doesn't matter what the PC makeup of the party is, their individual adventures should be designed or modified to reflect challenges that are fair and reasonable (this is being a "fair referee" as Scribe has indicated in other post) for them.
My point is that tabletop gaming is designed to be customized AROUND the players and PCs. It is not a game that players must customize their PCs FOR.
As ever,
ACE
|
...My point is that tabletop gaming is designed to be customized AROUND the players and PCs. It is not a game that players must customize their PCs FOR.
As ever,
ACE
That's true!
However, I've found out, that teamwork (between players and their DM) is the best way to approach a game.Before I start a new campaign, I tell my players a bit about it and what backgrounds would give good opportunities for their pcs. I also would tell them, that i.e. druids would not have much chance to shine or stuff like that.
After I have reviewed their pcs backgrounds, I think how to incorporate them and make the campaign more tailored to them. If something needs tweaking, I talk to that player.
For my group and me as the DM this works fine and I never had the problem of a player saying:"Why should my pc do that and fight for XYZ?".
...My point is that tabletop gaming is designed to be customized AROUND the players and PCs. It is not a game that players must customize their PCs FOR.
That's how my games work.
For me, it's the roleplay. I've never read a fun novel where the group of characters was carefully gathered to be able to cope with every conceivable challenge, where skill sets were meticulously crafted and excluded anything that might simply reflect an interest or aptitude of the character.
To each their own, though :)
Jack
Contributor
|
Well, I've had a change of heart.
I talked it over with my group, and they agree with Ace, so we've scrapped my old campaign and everyone made up new characters, and I have to say I never saw what role-play opportunties I was missing. Everyone made up the interesting character they want and this is what I have:
A pacifist Paladin who has sworn to never harm a living creature.
A blind, one-handed ranger. He has an excellent background about being caught as a poacher.
A cowardly halfling sorcerer who only has spells that help him flee, hide, and avoid damage.
A Half-orc cleric of Nerull.
So I'm going to run the Whispering Cairn. Can you advise me on how to modify the adventure to suit this party? It's gonna be great!
|
Contributor
|
Okay, obviously I was being ironic.
I feel that I am being presented as an extremist when all I am saying is that the party and DM need to work together.
And while my examples are extreme, I have at various times seen players present to me or other DMs all of the following.
Totally incompetent characters too numerous to list, intentionally made so for the fun of the role-play.
Pacifist characters who try to impose their pacifsm on the entire party for the role-play fun.
A mute bard.
Parties that as a whole totally lacked either healing, combat ability, any magic, etc.
Characters intentionally designed to create conflict with specific other members of the party. And I'm not talking tension, I'm talking conflict.
This is disruptive and destructive to the game. The DM should not be expected to have to tailor everything to make these imbalances work. And the more the players work together to make a balanced functioning group, the better the DM can make great encounters that challenge everyone.
Well, I've had a change of heart.
I talked it over with my group, and they agree with Ace, so we've scrapped my old campaign and everyone made up new characters, and I have to say I never saw what role-play opportunties I was missing. Everyone made up the interesting character they want and this is what I have:
A pacifist Paladin who has sworn to never harm a living creature.
A blind, one-handed ranger. He has an excellent background about being caught as a poacher.
A cowardly halfling sorcerer who only has spells that help him flee, hide, and avoid damage.
A Half-orc cleric of Nerull.
So I'm going to run the Whispering Cairn. Can you advise me on how to modify the adventure to suit this party? It's gonna be great!
No problem...if this is the party, creating or modifying the adventure would rely most heavily on roleplaying aspects rather than combat and the challenges would center around PC - NPC interactions. Sounds like Whispering Carin is a canned adventure - strip out 90% of the combat, adjust the CR of the battle encounters that you do run, lower the DC of skills that PCs will need to succeed in their non-combat goals, and beef up the XP for roleplaying goals.
If a party wants to munchkinize their PCs, take this example and adjust for 80% combat, raise CR of encoutners accordingly, raise DCs for skill based rolls, and hand out more XP for combat vs. roleplaying.
As ever,
ACE
How are you going to keep peace between the paladin and cleric? Personally, given the somewhat viscious encounters that AoW can throw at players, they might be in trouble quite a few times, considering the physcial and moral limits afflicting the group. I'm not saying that's bad, but just expect them to have a tougher time in the dungeons. You may wish to "nerf" a few of the encounters just a bit, or maybe provide an item or two to help them, placed in a secret location for them to find so they still feel good about accomplishing something. Don't overdo that, or they might feel cheated. Only do it when you know they'll be trounced.
Alternatively, just nerf your rolls sometimes. Let them get hammered once or twice, but no one die, and then give them the chance to go buy equipment to solve the problem on their own. That might be a better option.
On the other hand, focus heavily on the roleplaying aspects of the campaign! You've got a winning team there; go all out. Modify the plot a little bit so the hooks aren't so obvious and redundant, but otherwise, just focus on out-of-combat areas of the game. You should be very pleased with the results. It sounds like a great group.
|
Contributor
|
Sorry, I never addressed a couple of specific points:
(correct me if i'm wrong) Scribe suggests that the mindset of each player and DM should be that the PCs that adventure in the DM's world need be suited to overcome any challenge that could be set forth for the party.
Actually I said that the party should be prepared to deal with any type of challenge of an appropriate level. I am firmly opposed to the view that a DM can place whatever encounter wherever and it's up to the players to decide what to deal with.
I'm suggesting that these are the wrong questions that gamers should be asking about their game. It doesn't matter what the PC makeup of the party is, their individual adventures should be designed or modified to reflect challenges that are fair and reasonable (this is being a "fair referee" as Scribe has indicated in other post) for them.
Actually, that was not my term. It's a small point, but I've never liked being called a referee as a DM. I consider myself to be the "challenge setter," much as I think you suggest. I just think that part of the party overcoming the challenge is good party and character design.
Consider this. What if a player drops out, a PC gets killed, or the palyer decides to retire their character and make something new? Should I now re-tailor my adventure? If the character works with the party and DM to make sure their new character still works to create a balanced group, I don't need to.
Okay, obviously I was being ironic.
I feel that I am being presented as an extremist when all I am saying is that the party and DM need to work together.
And while my examples are extreme, I have at various times seen players present to me or other DMs all of the following.
Totally incompetent characters too numerous to list, intentionally made so for the fun of the role-play.
Pacifist characters who try to impose their pacifsm on the entire party for the role-play fun.
A mute bard.
Parties that as a whole totally lacked either healing, combat ability, any magic, etc.
Characters intentionally designed to create conflict with specific other members of the party. And I'm not talking tension, I'm talking conflict.
This is disruptive and destructive to the game. The DM should not be expected to have to tailor everything to make these imbalances work. And the more the players work together to make a balanced functioning group, the better the DM can make great encounters that challenge everyone.
I know you were over the top with your example...but extremism can make for excellent opportunities to illustrate a point. I think all of us who DM face problems with inter-PC and inter-Player conflict. They can be difficult to seperate because of the relationship a Player has with his/her PC. Currently my group is dealing with a Vecna cleric PC rub with a saint from BOED. This is where the Gary Gygax quote from someone else's post is germaine. The players have to concede parts of their PCs so there is only minimal conflict of interest when the party adventures together. I enjoy this dynamic because it creates interesting opportunities for the Players to roleplay their PCs.
The key for a DM for dealing with these issues is to first recognize how they limit the game design; take measures to adjust for the issues at the Campaign, Party, and Individual levels; and with these points in mind, to implement his/her work to the best of his/her ability.
Anyway, next time you are in St. Louie i'll buy you a beer Scribe and we can discuss ;)
As ever,
ACE
I put that last post up before you got your retraction, so disregard that advice from Ace and I. Next time, please make sure you put notes about sarcasm in the same post as the sarcastic comments themselves. However, it was funny. :)
Okay, obviously I was being ironic.
I feel that I am being presented as an extremist when all I am saying is that the party and DM need to work together.
And while my examples are extreme, I have at various times seen players present to me or other DMs all of the following.
Totally incompetent characters too numerous to list, intentionally made so for the fun of the role-play.
Pacifist characters who try to impose their pacifsm on the entire party for the role-play fun.
A mute bard.
Parties that as a whole totally lacked either healing, combat ability, any magic, etc.
Characters intentionally designed to create conflict with specific other members of the party. And I'm not talking tension, I'm talking conflict.
This is disruptive and destructive to the game. The DM should not be expected to have to tailor everything to make these imbalances work. And the more the players work together to make a balanced functioning group, the better the DM can make great encounters that challenge everyone.
I'm not making you out to be an extremist - you just let the players run all over you.
The common thread with all of those outlandish characters is that the players wanted to "just have fun with it" or "spice up the game" or "do something different"... All of those ultimately lead to disruption of the game - which, as a DM, is your responsibility to stop.
Personally, my way to deal with those players is to let them create a silly character, get them killed off, make a new one, etc. etc. until they get tired of generating silly characters every other session and of falling behind in XPs relative to the party; if they don't care and continue to do that just to disrupt the party or the game, it is time for that player to find another group. I had a player who got like that and she was asked to leave, with the groups' collective consent.
I'm not about forcing players to create characters that conform to the needs of the game, but I do enforce character-vs.-character participation - anything less is anti-group and needs to stop. Silly characters are fine - die laughing... but players who are willing to be disruptive to the enjoyment of all merely for their own entertainment are asking to leave the table for good.
M
There has been some interesting discussions flying around about what a DM should do it fit the campaign to his/her players.
Specifically how a DM should accomadate non-standard parties that might face problems in normal campaign settings.
Personally, I do not tailor very much to my players. They never have a typical party. I try to think very little of what presents a larger versus a smaller challenge. I just get an idea for a scenario and then I play it out with their characters as I think they might play them. If they breeze through a tough fight, so be it, they have an unusual array of talents and when certain situations arrise they are bound to shine and shine brightly. But the same is true when they have a difficult encounter, they have a lacking in many areas that can be crippling in some situations. However if I smell a TPK I try to provide an exit stratagy.
This does two things. One it allows characters to shine. For instance if you have a radiant servant of pelor you probably would not use a vampire as a major boss because one turning attempt and there goes the big baddie in one fell swoop. I would. I would let a specified ablility be used for the reason it was developed. To destroy large threats easily. As a player I would not like a dungeon where
room 1: the fighter uses his str to bust in the stuck door.
room 2: the rogue disarms the trap
room 3: the cleric turns the skeleton
room 4: the wizard deciphers the ancient text
room 5: the boss fight where everyone can do something significant
thats boring.
Two, the players that get their weaknesses tested on a regular basis learn quickly to strengthen them. This keeps higher intellect baddies from looking at a party and saying hmmm..... a party of gnome illusionists? And then gets a scroll of mind blank gives it to a red dragon with blindsense and thre goes the cute little gnomes because they had no backup plan.
Plus once again I wouldn't want the only skills needed to get through a dungeon only be the skills the party has and comming up with a room 1-5 scenario.
And neither would I want my big bad speciality only represented when the DM felt like making me feel special. "Its the wizards turn to shine in this dungeon so I'll throw in a prismatic wall so he will be responsible for the teams progress this time."
If someone in my games has an obscure talent they should expect to find a use for it rarely. But when they do chances are it will have a big effect on the party.
For instance, I'm going to play a srcerer soon at lvl 1. My two spells are color spray and ray of enfeeblement. I am useless against undead. Bt I would be pissed off if we never fought any at all. I wouldn't mid if we fought a lot. It's and opportunity for my character to develope. Hmmmm.... my skills are not very effective, I need to diversify and consider other options.
Everyone needs to adapt to the world, I do not see it as the DM's failing if the characters have to adjust. If my party wants to be useless in combat with interesting storylines. That is great I will set up a world. But that world will still have danger and they better have a plan if their discussions piss off something more powerful than them.
Actually I said that the party should be prepared to deal with any type of challenge of an appropriate level. I am firmly opposed to the view that a DM can place whatever encounter wherever and it's up to the players to decide what to deal with.
I disagree; the world is not 'tailored' to the composition of the party - it is a dynamic, random place. It's up to the party to have the wherewithall to decide what is an easy fight, what is a risky fight and what you should run away from - just like the real world.
Consider this. What if a player drops out, a PC gets killed, or the player decides to retire their character and make something new? Should I now re-tailor my adventure? If the character works with the party and DM to make sure their new character still works to create a balanced group, I don't need to.
Exactly - the DM shouldn't need to alter the game severely to ajust to a single character change; I've had players retire characters and bring in new ones all the time.
M
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I agree with the Scribe (except for that paragraph Marc quoted and disagreed with, but I think there is a missing "not" judging by the rest of Scribe's posts) and I especially like SexiGolem's points.
My players know that I don't fudge rolls, I follow the rules, and they will die if they play stupid.
As an aside - what is up with people comparing D&D to video games in a negative way? First, I think there are a lot of good elements of video games that should be (and have been) adopted into D&D. Second, I think the average video game is much more like a story-driven DM. If you decided you would really rather not participate in the main storyline, there's not a whole lot you can do in a video game. That's the weakness of a story based approach (IMO) and the reason why I run a dispassionate world for the players to interact with (when I'm not running AoW that is).
|
|
If the players can't overcome the obsticles you put for them by their own intellect and imagination then perhaps you should take the challenge you put forth down a notch, but I don't see weakening my whole campaign world, or tailoring to fit what my players are up against just because they made poor choices.
I'm not saying that I'm gunning for them or anything(definnatly not, my wife, neice, father-in-law, and 2 cousins comprise my group right now),but I make the encounters with plenty of room for improvisation, don't throw monsters they can't handle, or make things impossible, if your players can't see a way to accomplish their tasks after all that then either they have no teamwork or no immagination...
Specifically how a DM should accomadate non-standard parties that might face problems in normal campaign settings.
This quote points to the heart of it as well. What is a "normal campaign setting" ? My point: *There is no such thing* unless you want to purchace a product and utilize it as is. If this is the case, then unless the party consists of what is most often considered a "power party" there will be problems.
If this is how a campaign or session is run, the players should play a power party because the goal is to conquer prefabbed challenges, not challenges suited for a specific group of PCs. To me, this plays like a video game and penalizes norm-deviant PCs that should never be penalized for simply existing.
As ever,
ACE
Consider this. What if a player drops out, a PC gets killed, or the player decides to retire their character and make something new? Should I now re-tailor my adventure? If the character works with the party and DM to make sure their new character still works to create a balanced group, I don't need to.Exactly - the DM shouldn't need to alter the game severely to ajust to a single character change; I've had players retire characters and bring in new ones all the time.
M
What? I don't understand this at all...If a PC is killed or a player leaves or doesn't show up for a game session, the DM better adjust for the change in some fashion. In a broader setting, it doesn't matter that much if a new character enters or an old one leaves, all it means is that he/she will need to be integrated or severed from the campaign.
As ever,
ACE
If the players have someone in the party with a maxed out skill to successfully deal to assume success with every challenge presented in a level appropriate campaign - well thats not adventuring, thats math.
There has to be a chance at failure or risk for it to actually be an adventure otherwise its a trip with chores added. Do your characters (not players) go, "Gee we're fifth level adventure X would be perfect lets appear there and do that." The characters shouldn't know what their getting into sometimes specific tasks SHOULD be beyond them. They should have to go around the crevasse because no one can jump it, similarly soemtimes it should easy enough success it just assumed. If no one can think of an alternative course of action modifying how the scenario plays out, if swimming the river is an listed at a DC it is unrealistic for anyone to achieve let them "take 40" to solve the problem - that is rather than a failure they slog through but it takes an inordinate amount of time (and if you want to add spice attracts unwanted attention). The same is true of monsters - if the world is realistic sometimes the characters should have to run, get help, set a trap, etc. rather than simply encounter challnges that are level appropriate with a good probability of success and each encounter consuming roughly 25% of party resources.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If this is how a campaign or session is run, the players should play a power party because the goal is to conquer prefabbed challenges, not challenges suited for a specific group of PCs. To me, this plays like a video game and penalizes norm-deviant PCs that should never be penalized for simply existing.
I think you are confusing pre-fabbed challenges with pre-fabbed options. A pre-fabbed challenge is not what makes a video game restrictive, it is pre-fabbed options for overcoming that challenge. Is there a wall of ice in your way in the videogame? Well, then you have to go find the lever to move it. Is there a wall of ice in your D&D game? You can: burn it, chop it, move around it, teleport through it, fly over it, dig around it, hire someone to do the above, decide that getting around it is not that important and do something else, etc. The options that are available are dictated by the player, the DM does not need to change the wall of ice to accomodate the options the players have included in their arsenal.
Using limited resources to overcome the obstacles in the game is part of the fun for many players. If, as a DM, you deny them the opportunity to express that creativity by tailoring the challenegs to those resources, you are robbing the fun for some of those players.
Edit: In fact, I would say that most video games tailor the challenges to the group to a much greater extent than you are acknowledging. When do you get the rocket launcher in half-life 2? When you need to start taking out creatures only harmed by said rocket launcher. The challenge is tailored to the players in video games.
|
An honest question for this forum:
In a previous, long-runnign camapgn, the party was nearing their 16th-17th level, and it was fair to say that their collective power level exceeded ordinary expectations: five PCs and two cohorts (Leadership feat and Thamurturgist cohort).
The group was soon confronted with a powerful "anti-party" which they had dueled with before- perhaps in error, I had allowed these NPCs to "evolve" into various undead incarnations, a lich True Necromancer, two Death Knights- fighter Tempest and spellthief, Bone Thri-kreen Assassin, a Master Vampire Bladesinger, and a Ghost Sorceress Summoner (Alienist). There was, of course, a horde of other very powerful undead scattered throughout their citadel in the heart of a shattered capital city, as well as some powerful druidic stone giants (story details omitted).
After a few skirmishes with these folks and their allies, which led to the incidental death of the powerful Thamur. cohort, the Psychic Warrior trip artist/deep impacter with Expansion and polymorph any objected into a leonal for painful measure. In response to this cohort's death, the Thamurturgist opted to recruit a new cohort (albiet at the lessened score and for the hefty 1000 gp x HD cost) and retrieved an aasiamr cleric... more specifically, a Radiant Servant of Pelor.
At this point, all undead encounters were completely shattered, and even the CR 21 Bladesinger fell to the party (plus his 12 minions, including a potent sorceress) in three rounds... to a polymorph any object no less. The rest of undead crew bandied together, met with the group moments after this battle, and yielded the capital to them, taking off for the balmier climes of Carceri to join the great empire of Nerull.
And so my question: What errors were made to lead to the CR-busting result? Did I, the DM, focus too heavily on undead, only to be surprised by the Radiant Servant? Should the addition of the Radiant Servant, in the heart of an ongoing storyline dripping with undead have been prevented? Was the world not "random" enough? What, in your opinion, could have been done better to make this game challenging (I assure you, despite the noted skirmish, the last 4 or so PC levels of that campaign seemed a cakewalk, and CRs ranged from +1 above party level to +3-4)
I ask only because I find both sides of the debate compelling, and wondered if this example might help me come to a better udnerstanding of what went wrong.
P.s. Ray of enfeeblement actually functions on undead, despite being a necromanctic effect- it was in a recent FAQ, I believe, but I do know it works. Hooray for your sorceror, Sexi :)
No problem...if this is the party, creating or modifying the adventure would rely most heavily on roleplaying aspects rather than combat and the challenges would center around PC - NPC interactions. Sounds like Whispering Carin is a canned adventure - strip out 90% of the combat, adjust the CR of the battle encounters that you do run, lower the DC of skills that PCs will need to succeed in their non-combat goals, and beef up the XP for roleplaying goals.If a party wants to munchkinize their PCs, take this example and adjust for 80% combat, raise CR of encoutners accordingly, raise DCs for skill based rolls, and hand out more XP for combat vs. roleplaying.
As ever,
ACE
I was leery on this concept before but here I'm sure I don't agree. If you strip out 80% of the combat encounters and replace them with role playing encounters thats just not the Whispering Cairne. I might as well say my impressive players survived Gygax's Tomb of Horrors - of course they had no thieves, mages or smart guys so I removed all the traps and puzzles. To be Tomb of Horrors it kind of has to have traps and such.
Ug...I can already tell that people aren't wrapping their brains around what i am saying. Think bigger than specific events, challenges, modules, classes, feats,...whatever. This whole discussion is based on how one approaches the game of D&D. A kind of philosophy of gaming. I mentioned this on another post, but there is a growing body of literature available to read that outlines different modes of gaming. I'd suggest picking up titles on the philosophy of social gaming...you can readily find them on Amazon.
I'm not talking about anything that hasn't been outlined before...I'm just reiterating rhetoric espoused by others. Read subject headings that refer to "modes of gaming" in such titles.
As ever,
ACE
Hey!
This is never a problem I have faced and here's why - I let my players make up the world.
(I can feel the gasps now.)
Uh huh. That's right, let me tell you why.
1)The characters *always* fit into the world.
2)The characters feel at home at the start of the game. I can't emphasize how much this helps a game! The players know the world so the characters don't have to ge used to it.
3)The characters fit together. This always works out better because the character creation process no longer exists in a vaccuum - it takes place at the same time and within the same 'space' as the creation of the world. The same applies to the party.
4)The players are involved in the entire process. I might want to run a game where the Beholders are the villians but one of my players thinks Beholders suck. Harpies on the other hand... So how about a Harpy kingdom with Beholder slaves? Or Allies? We can work it out.
I know there are a lot of people who disagree with me but I swear by it. And contrary to popular belief it in no way strips a GM of their power. As the GM I still get the final say-so (So no, Illithids are not a PC race choice, and Halflings *have* to have big hairy feet... ;P ). Also it in no way strips away creativity - in fact it adds to it. The world becomes greater than the sum of it's parts.
Plus you can pull some really neat twists on the players because they make *so* many more assumptions about their world! ;)
Give it a go!
Peace,
tfad
If Monte Cook says that players have to create characters that conceivably work with other PCs and that the character should fit into the DMs world then I believe him and endorse it as gospel!
"... and making sure everyone has fun isn't solely in the purview of the DM."
IMO it seems clear that it is a two way street. The players have to play nice and bring to the table a party that works within the expections that the DM and the party have. And the DM is tasked with ensuring that the world is playable; i.e. no adult red dragons vs. a first level party.
my 2c
igi
I'm not making you out to be an extremist - you just let the players run all over you.The common thread with all of those outlandish characters is that the players wanted to "just have fun with it" or "spice up the game" or "do something different"... All of those ultimately lead to disruption of the game - which, as a DM, is your responsibility to stop.
Personally, my way to deal with those players is to let them create a silly character, get them killed off, make a new one, etc. etc. until they get tired of generating silly characters every other session and of falling behind in XPs relative to the party; if they don't care and continue to do that just to disrupt the party or the game, it is time for that player to find another group. I had a player who got like that and she was asked to leave, with the groups' collective consent.
I'm not about forcing players to create characters that conform to the needs of the game, but I do enforce...
I agree with you except that I'd never get this far with me. If my players handed me four of these kinds of characters I'd stop the game right there. There is something wrong because what the players are playing and what I'm playing no longer click - there is a clear disconnect and until thats sorted out there is not going to be any gaming.
I'd stop the game - put my DMs screen away - probably change rooms so we could change the seating arrangment and ask anyone if they want some coffee or tea - My take is we have several hours ahead of us were we descuss what kind of a game is going to be run - what kind of a game each of the players is looking for and what kind of a game I'm looking to run.
The bottom line is I'm not running Age of Worms with a bunch of players who are not interested in a gritty epic about the doings of an evil God and his cult with players that are not interested in that theme - its no fair or fun for me as a DM and its niether fair or fun for the players either. It is obvously time to sit down and figure out what it is we all want and expect from the game and thats what I would endevour to do with that gaming session.
There has been some interesting discussions flying around about what a DM should do it fit the campaign to his/her players.
Specifically how a DM should accomadate non-standard parties that might face problems in normal campaign settings.
Personally, I do not tailor very much to my players....
I'm basically is total agreement with you in this regards. Generally speaking I have a pretty good idea about what kinds of adventures are going to take place in the campaign before any player starts choosing their characters - I have zero idea what they are going to create - I make my adventures to be true to the world and true to the NPCS who inhabit them.
As you say - players will generally adjust to compensate. While they don't have to bring one of each type of class I do find that they usually do - I have no compunctions against killing them and never fudge a roll either for or against them - they know it so they generally won't leave home without covering all the bases some how or another. They don't have to have a cleric but they better have good access to healing etc. Its actually interesting to watch them sort things out before a session sometimes as they try and figure out if the Thief has a good enough Use Magic Device skill to be a stand in for the Cleric. So far they have always - ultimately - decided no, to many weak points, to much chance of a bad skill roll at a critical time.
In the end I believe my players prefer it this way. They know the world is unforgiving but they know that the deck is not stacked against them either. Occasionally its a little frustrating for me if they have gone on for 50 minutes planning - but I'm also gratified to see this sort of thing - even if I'm not personally engaged. If they are thinking, planning and plotting constructively then this whole aspect really just is not about me at all. Its about them deciding exactly how they plan on overcoming the challenges and obstacles they have learned about through one means or another and what kind of party composition is best for accomplishing that. For the moment I'll just have to sit back and chill (or reread some notes or whatever) while my players plan and plot. Their ultimate reward comes when their planning and plotting works out (usually with some slight modifications to deal with unforeseen circumstances). Not only do they get the loot and the XP but maybe more importantly they get the satisfaction of knowing that they faced real challenges and through a combination of smarts, skill and a pinch of luck they overcame these challenges - and they know they overcame real challenges and did it themselves because they're not dead - and I kill without hesitation.
This whole discussion is based on how one approaches the game of D&D. A kind of philosophy of gaming. I mentioned this on another post, but there is a growing body of literature available to read that outlines different modes of gaming. I'd suggest picking up titles on the philosophy of social gaming.
It sounds like you hang out at the Forge too, ACE! =)
Gaming theories are all the rage in the independent gaming sector - how the DM and the players approach the game do in fact affect how the game is played.
It's not that people don't understand your intent - they are acting out the varying theories directly in front of you. It's like being Jane Goodall, for the gaming set.
There are those here who tend towards the player-centric mindset: we do what we want, and the DM/GM/ST/Referee has to adjust to what /we/ want.
There are those who tend towards creating a fully-fleshed-out, realized character, and wants to game to focus on developing those characters even further.
Another type includes those who see the game as a challenge, and their sheets as the tools they use to overcome the challenge. This is gamist thinking, and can cause munchkinism and power-gaming. You find the system that allows you to win, and exploit it.
Adversarial mode pits the DM vs the PCs, and winner takes all. This works best at conventions or pick-up games, otherwise hard feelings tend to develop.
I could blather on, but you get my point. D&D as a whole tends to favor creative use of the rules, as opposed to a system like FUDGE, where everything is freeform and player-created. The system as a whole in not at fault, but there is a certain element of "this CR = this treasure = this much xp = this new level for my PC."
While not bad, this mindset does tend towards prepackaged adventures that require a great deal of tinkering to customize. I still prefer it to the old heydays of White Wolf adventures, when I opened _Loom of Fate_ and thought, "What am I supposed to do with this? It's just an outline...Anyone can write an outline!" =)
|
Contributor
|
I'm not making you out to be an extremist - you just let the players run all over you.
This is hilarious. I just defended myself against being accused more or less of infringing on player freedom and now I let them walk all over me.
I said these were ideas that I have seen presented to me or other DMs. I didn't say that all of them were allowed to run wild, either by me or by those other DMs. Certainly some were, back in the day, which is why I firmly believe that adventuring parties need to be balanced and cohesive.
The common thread with all of those outlandish characters is that the players wanted to "just have fun with it" or "spice up the game" or "do something different"... All of those ultimately lead to disruption of the game - which, as a DM, is your responsibility to stop.
Which is pretty much exactly what I was saying.
I disagree; the world is not 'tailored' to the composition of the party - it is a dynamic, random place. It's up to the party to have the wherewithall to decide what is an easy fight, what is a risky fight and what you should run away from - just like the real world.
My sentiments exactly - if you learn about an old Blue Dragon don't go paying it a visit at 5th level - if you insist you will most probably end up dead.
After sitting through a history class focusing on Reconstruction-era America, this sounds all too much like a governmental battle over Federal Powers and States' Rights. Ugh.
I think that there have been a lot of misunderstandings throughout this thread, and that no one's really taking the extreme point that others feel they are. We ALL modify the game to our players in some way. When making a point, it's often best to go to extremes.
You start a new campaign, at 1st level. Do you put a great wyrm red dragon to face the party? No. Why not? If it just happened to be there, why not? Isn't the world random and dynamic? Don't great wyrm red dragons eat 1st level parties all the time? Yes, but that's no fun. The players aren't just any old NPC, they're heroes.
So, no, you don't throw them against the great wyrm red dragon. You've just tailored your game to your players.
Everything else, every desicion you make about what to throw at them, is merely an extension of that. Each DM has their own individual "boundary", the exact level of desicion making involved in their game.
I like a story centric game, in which making the party come up against great challenges and weaving a memorable plot is the main focus (for me at least). I look at what the party composition is, and make judgements on what they will fight accordingly, sometimes. If I see they're 8th level and have a desire to play them against mind flayers, I'll do it, despite their lack of high Will saves if they are all, let's say, fighters. Surely some of them will make the save and get out. And I won't make the challenge impossible, but it will be hard. Other times, I realize, "Gee, the wizard's player really likes to just blow things up. He hasn't done that in a while. Ok, the next fight will take place at range against smaller CR enemies so he can just blow things up." Everyone is happy. I try to throw variable fights into random encounters, but I also put them in planned events.
In my last campaign, I planned on having a monk and druid as the main front-liners (as my players had informed me they planned on playing those classes), so a put in a behir for them to fight, knowing that they are front liners and could handle it, but their average BAB and such would still put them at risk of being grappled and swallowed. I made that desicion to challenge them.
Other DMs may not know what their players have until they start rolling dice. That's fine. To each their own. I just don't like that and won't run that type of game, as I can't easily build an epic story around that, and it's my right to hold that opinion and act upon it. It's also any other DM's right to run an adventure completely unprepared, if they can actually pull it off and still have everyone excited and happy at the end of the session.
All just the world through my eyes. Happy gaming!
Hey!
This is never a problem I have faced and here's why - I let my players make up the world.
(I can feel the gasps now.)
Uh huh. That's right, let me tell you why.
1)The characters *always* fit into the world.
2)The characters feel at home at the start of the game. I can't emphasize how much this helps a game! The players know the world so the characters don't have to ge used to it.
3)The characters fit together. This always works out better because the character creation process no longer exists in a vaccuum - it takes place at the same time and within the same 'space' as the creation of the world. The same applies to the party.
4)The players are involved in the entire process. I might want to run a game where the Beholders are the villians but one of my players thinks Beholders suck. Harpies on the other hand... So how about a Harpy kingdom with Beholder slaves? Or Allies? We can work it out.I know there are a lot of people who disagree with me but I swear by it. And contrary to popular belief it in no way strips a GM of their power. As the GM I still get the final say-so (So no, Illithids are not a PC race choice, and Halflings *have* to have big hairy feet... ;P ). Also it in no way strips away creativity - in fact it adds to it. The world becomes greater than the sum of it's parts.
Plus you can pull some really neat twists on the players because they make *so* many more assumptions about their world! ;)Give it a go!
Peace,
tfad
I think your idea is really quite interesting though I'd not go for it myself. I think world creation is really one of my best features as a DM and I'm willing to really pump time and effort into that area. I'd like my players to have a chance to explore the world as is and discover its secrets. On those occasions where I'm a player I prefer to set aside the work load and just sit back and enjoy the atmosphere created by another DM.
Ug...I can already tell that people aren't wrapping their brains around what i am saying. Think bigger than specific events, challenges, modules, classes, feats,...whatever. This whole discussion is based on how one approaches the game of D&D. A kind of philosophy of gaming. I mentioned this on another post, but there is a growing body of literature available to read that outlines different modes of gaming. I'd suggest picking up titles on the philosophy of social gaming...you can readily find them on Amazon.
I'm not talking about anything that hasn't been outlined before...I'm just reiterating rhetoric espoused by others. Read subject headings that refer to "modes of gaming" in such titles.
As ever,
ACE
I think I am more or less wrapping my brain around what your saying and I think the others on this thread are as well ... its just that a lot of us don't agree with you. I still don't agree with you even if you have some Game Theory book that endorses your point of view.
I've read some myself - 2nd Editions Catacombs book stands out in this regards. I often find I agree with significant elements of what they endorse but I don't agree with all elements.
Furthermore its worth noting that some views about the philosophy of gaming change as time goes on. There was a time when read aloud text was supposed to drip atmosphere and 50 cent words were to be scattered into it very liberally - its a concept that eventually was pretty much swept away as it was found that players tended to faze out from the descriptions. What seemed like such an obviously good idea at the time appears, in retrospect to be best left to a small number of skilled DMs whose voices and hand gestures etc. can keep his players focused and interested on what he is saying even as he drones on for 3 minutes without their input whatsoever.
Hey!
This is never a problem I have faced and here's why - I let my players make up the world.
(I can feel the gasps now.)
Uh huh. That's right, let me tell you why.
This is a very good idea, but you have to have confidence in your players, and it has to be something they are interested in.
In my own group, there are two of us who love going in-depth into world building and there are three of us who want to get together and hang out - whether that includes rolling dice, playing cards, or watching movies, it makes no difference to them.
Your approach would fail utterly with my group, and I imagine for many groups, but if you have found a core set of players that enjoy it, then go at it with a vengeance! :)
After sitting through a history class focusing on Reconstruction-era America, this sounds all too much like a governmental battle over Federal Powers and States' Rights. Ugh.
I think that there have been a lot of misunderstandings throughout this thread, and that no one's really taking the extreme point that others feel they are. We ALL modify the game to our players in some way. When making a point, it's often best to go to extremes.
You start a new campaign, at 1st level. Do you put a great wyrm red dragon to face the party? No. Why not? If it just happened to be there, why not? Isn't the world random and dynamic? Don't great wyrm red dragons eat 1st level parties all the time? Yes, but that's no fun. The players aren't just any old NPC, they're heroes....
OK your undoubtably right in this regards. I suspect the DMs that say Great Wyrm Red Dragons exist and if the party wants to fight them the Dragon won't be nerfed are not also saying that the Great Wrm Red Dragon is hanging on top of the Inn where they will first meet at 1st level in order eat them when they emerge. Admittedly a Great Wyrm Red Dragon might be able to do that but no DM is likely to place it there.
Certianly in my case there are going to be lots of more or less level appropreate adventures to choose from - they just probably also have inappropreate choices as well - stuff they just should not follow up on until they are high level - and I expect them to be able to figure that sort of thing out. It may be important, eventually, to the Plot that they get a Dragon Bane Sword from the Hoarde of a powerful Red Dragon and they may learn that the Dragon has the sword and were it lives from some Kobold servants of its at 2nd level. But they'll just have to follow other adventures until they can handle this one.
I will note that epic does not require the DM to tailor his adventure to his specific PCs, I'm big on story telling type campaigns myself and its certian that the PCs will be the hero's of the story. The fact that I don't know if its going to be a Half-Fey Druid who will be a hero or a Human Hospitalar does not really matter - my story will surely be able to accomidate both types of heros.
OK your undoubtably right in this regards. I suspect the DMs that say Great Wyrm Red Dragons exist and if the party wants to fight them the Dragon won't be nerfed are not also saying that the Great Wrm Red Dragon is hanging on top of the Inn where they will first meet at 1st level in order eat them when they emerge. Admittedly a Great Wyrm Red Dragon might be able to do that but no DM is likely to place it there.
I'm not 100% sure of your intent in this paragraph, but I'm assuming you are thinking that I indicated that some DMs on these boards carry the "my world is alive and the players' abilities don't matter" to the point of actually doing this. I was not.
No good DM would, or rather, should pull a move like that, and I'm sure no DM on these boards is that asenine. When making a point, it can often be hard to prove it by dallying in the middle ground, so you take it to the extreme.
Some people might say that they don't look at party composition whatsoever, and it can be hard to find the truth by continuing to debate relatively minute variables, such as CRs within several points of the average party level, the party's possession of certain classes and abilities, etc.
By dragging it out to the extreme and saying, "Would you throw your 1st level players against a great wyrm red dragon, just because you can work it into the story and it makes sense?", you illustrate to the person that, yes, you do modify your adventures to the players, it's just a difference of how much, at which point the whole issue becomes a debate over the exact shade of gray that the walls are painted and ultimately pointless, so long as everyone has fun. Unless they say they would use the dragon, at which point the conversation is over.
Ug...I can already tell that people aren't wrapping their brains around what i am saying.I think I am more or less wrapping my brain around what your saying and I think the others on this thread are as well ... its just that a lot of us don't agree with you.
Exactly. I don't agree with theacemu's initial premise: that it is the DM's job to adjust the game to suit whatever characters the players choose to play (all gnome illusionists, for example).
Does this mean that when I DM, there's going to be an encounter with a dragon at 1st level? No, of course not. There will be challenges that are appropriate for a typical 1st-level party. But if the players choose to put together an atypical party, the consequences of that are on them.
In other words, there's going to be a Super Bowl game, and the other team is going to be the Seattle Seahawks. You can put up any team you like against them; it doesn't have to be the Steelers, but don't expect the referees to "make adjustments" if you choose to field the local high school's junior varsity team.
I think your idea is really quite interesting though I'd not go for it myself. I think world creation is really one of my best features as a DM and I'm willing to really pump time and effort into that area. I'd like my players to have a chance to explore the world as is and discover its secrets. On those occasions where I'm a player I prefer to set aside the work load and just sit back and enjoy the atmosphere created by another DM.
Hey!
Just wanted to post back and share a little more. I do put a lot of effort in and get involved in the process. Most of the time and effort goes in after the players are finished though. Once they're done you can take over and get those juices flowing. Suprising them is so much easier doing things this way because the players make *way* too many assumptions. A while back one of my players got the shock his (character's) life upon discovering his home kingdom was the supposed resting place of an ancient dragon - '..but..but.. The scriptures said he slept under the lands to the south!' They later discovered that myth was based on a 'mistranslation' made thousands of years ago to put fear into an invading army.
;)
Seriously, give it ago!
Peace,
tfad
Wow and I always thought alignment debates were the most heated and long running.
No kidding. The difference is that an alignment debate focuses on deciphering a sometimes murky, ambiguous bit of the core rules. This is a debate over how people should approach the game itself. Let's focus on that last paragraph I posted:
"By dragging it out to the extreme and saying, "Would you throw your 1st level players against a great wyrm red dragon, just because you can work it into the story and it makes sense?", you illustrate to the person that, yes, you do modify your adventures to the players, it's just a difference of how much, at which point the whole issue becomes a debate over the exact shade of gray that the walls are painted and ultimately pointless, so long as everyone has fun. Unless they say they would use the dragon, at which point the conversation is over."
Don't you know that everyone sees everything a slightly different way, by our natures? So why is everyone getting so worked up over the color of the wall? Who's to say what color it really is, or should be, anyway?
It sounds like you hang out at the Forge too, ACE! =)Gaming theories are all the rage in the independent gaming sector - how the DM and the players approach the game do in fact affect how the game is played.
It's not that people don't understand your intent - they are acting out the varying theories directly in front of you. It's like being Jane Goodall, for the gaming set.
There are those here who tend towards the player-centric mindset: we do what we want, and the DM/GM/ST/Referee has to adjust to what /we/ want.
There are those who tend towards creating a fully-fleshed-out, realized character, and wants to game to focus on developing those characters even further.
Another type includes those who see the game as a challenge, and their sheets as the tools they use to overcome the challenge. This is gamist thinking, and can cause munchkinism and power-gaming. You find the system that allows you to win, and exploit it.
Adversarial mode pits the DM vs the PCs, and winner takes all. This works best at conventions or pick-up games, otherwise hard feelings tend to develop.
I could blather on, but you get my point. D&D as a whole tends to favor creative use of the rules, as opposed to a system like FUDGE, where everything is freeform and player-created. The system as a whole in not at fault, but there is a certain element of "this CR = this treasure = this much xp = this new level for my PC."
While not bad, this mindset does tend towards prepackaged adventures that require a great deal of tinkering to customize. I still prefer it to the old heydays of White Wolf adventures, when I opened _Loom of Fate_ and thought, "What am I supposed to do with this? It's just an...
Yes, I can already tell in my brief time reading these boards that many of the posters here either haven't yet read a body of literature about gaming or have only studied a narrow sample of the genre. I'm big on analogies...here's what i liken my experience thus far on these particular boards: It's like trying to hold a group conversation about differing philosophies of governance and only 10% of the group has read Plato's Republic, Trotsky's essays, Hitler's Mein Kampf, and Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra. While it is unnecessary for gamers to understand HOW the game can be played to enjoy playing, it becomes problematic when attempting to discuss anything other than the normative trappings of convention.
As ever,
ACE
Don't you know that everyone sees everything a slightly different way, by our natures? So why is everyone getting so worked up over the color of the wall? Who's to say what color it really is, or should be, anyway?
Agreed we all see things differently, but almost none of the arguments and debates on these boards have a clear yes or no answer. I think it's fine that we continue these discussions because it gives everyone a chance to throw in their oppinion and others to fully develope theirs.
For instance, "the PC's building the wold", sounds like an awesome idea and I'm glad it came up in this discussion. True some are not seeing eye to eye but that will pass eventually. Then most likely they will resectfully agree to disagree. But that is fine, we all know where this is going but it does not mean the journey is not worth it.
In my campaigns yes a diverse party helps. But so does an undiverse party. Something crazy and off the wall, like the pacifist paladin, blind ranger, ect. Okay, but this party will not fit into many types of campaigns. It is limited by the fact that if they want to be heroes of high caliber they will be opposed by high caliber ressistance. Enemies that do not share their weaknesses or their avertion to combat. In age of worms there is no way to encorporate a party like this. You can get rid of the combat? How? There are hoards of cultists and evil creatures working together to make the world burst from the inside out with giant worms! They are powerful and they are many and the only way to get the party to triumph is to make them few and weak. and then all other organzations have to be equally weak or else they would just take them out and the entire threat would be nill. Not to mention the only functional party member (the cleric) is on the opposing side to the story arc.
Weird party? Fine. Too weird to do heric things? Fine they will not attempt them.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yes, I can already tell in my brief time reading these boards that many of the posters here either haven't yet read a body of literature about gaming or have only studied a narrow sample of the genre. I'm big on analogies...here's what i liken my experience thus far on these particular boards: It's...
Here's an analogy:
In college, every philosphy class in every college has that guy. He sits in the back and scoffs at the professor's basic introductory lecture concerning the subject. His questions are posed in a way to suggest that not only does he know the answer, but that he understands the subject to such a depth that his asking the question is exposing the other students to some new level of insight. Freshmen are invariably impressed and intimidated by this guy and his mastery of the subject. (Coincidentally, he takes classes that are full of freshmen.)
Everyone else is not impressed and hates that guy.
Yes, I can already tell in my brief time reading these boards that many of the posters here either haven't yet read a body of literature about gaming or have only studied a narrow sample of the genre.
While that is certainly true, I hope you're not suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you falls into one of those two categories.
I for one have been playing D&D in its various incarnations for over 25 years. I'm thoroughly familiar with the "genre" of gaming. And I've whiled away countless hours discussing (online and in person) RPG theory, DMing styles, group contracts, etc., etc.
This is, in fact, why I reject your One True Way-ism. I have had far too much experience with RPGs to accept that the only "right way" to DM is to customize a campaign for the specific PCs the players choose to play. That can be a fun and rewarding style of DMing, sure, but there are others that are just as enjoyable.
|
Contributor
|
ACE,
Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that because someone doesn't agree with you, that the don't know as much as you or just don't get it.
I get it. I started gaming in 1979. I have played a diverse number of games in a diverse number of styles. My style of play has changed many times to suit my current beliefs and lifestyle. I accept your style of play as valid.
My arguments here have been to defend that my style is also valid. I think that I have repeatedly demonstrated my open-mindedness. It is you refuses to even look fairly at my point of view. I still have no desire to be inflammatory about this, but in spite of your opening this discussion with the statement that you didn't want to pick on me, I feel that you have been closed-minded and used a demeaning tone with everyone who doesn't agree with you.
So now those of us who disagree with you are focusing on the details and missing the overall philosophy of gaming. Personally, I don't think you can seperate the two. The trees are the forest. The forest is the trees.
So here's my philosophy on gaming, the gestalt. Everyone at your gaming table should be having fun. Everybody at my table has fun. If I adopted your style, I would not (at least, not as much), and those of my players with whom I have discussed this have assured me that they would not either. Of course, I will assume that everyone at your table has fun, and that there are many gaming groups out there that would have fun with your style of play.
I am not the example of everything that is wrong in RPGs today. I am not too stupid to understand your philosophy. I am just a gamer with a different style of play than you.
Yes, I can already tell in my brief time reading these boards that many of the posters here either haven't yet read a body of literature about gaming or have only studied a narrow sample of the genre.
Ace I hope I'm wrong but this did not seem to argue any point. What it seemed to me was an insult to 90% (exactly by your words) of the members on these boards.
Despite my clearly unevolved intellect I would like to pose a suggestion to you. Albeit I have not read any high level and ancient government texts but none the less my limited senses have provided my ganglia with a useful piece of information.
When I feel like I am in a room surrounded by idiots, I leave the room.
//AtlasRaven sidesteps thrown potato at Ace
Sometimes its fun to play the weird character for me anyways, DMG2 lists some examples of types of players you might have at the table and i personally identify with the Oddball that runs naked up and down the dungeon. The pacifist paladin (hopefully just against killing and not wounding) and blind ranger etc... make a very eclectic bunch but like its been said you can still DM a fun game with them. Probably just throw them in an oddball world with an even odder big baddie.
Anyways, is knowledge of only D&D needed to post on this board. Do i have to have Warhammer 40k Command certification too? I dont? Maybe just a couple games and some Core Book knowledge? Good.
I have an ear of Corn on the Cob and im not afraid to throw it.
It is apparent that some have perceived my comments as personal attacks. I apologize if that is the case...i've never intended to anger anyone. I used Scribe's and other's comments as seguaes into discussion about the game, not personal attacks. Let's not conflate my views regarding the game and comments regarding the level of discussion thus far in this forum with anything more than game discussion.
Also, my comments about the level of discussion thus far bear repeating:
"While it is unnecessary for gamers to understand HOW the game can be played to enjoy playing, it becomes problematic when attempting to discuss anything other than the normative trappings of convention."
This points to ignorance in the non-pujoritive sense of the word...not knowing. It is difficult to conduct a group discussion with differing knowledge bases.
As ever,
ACE
This points to ignorance in the non-pujoritive sense of the word...not knowing. It is difficult to conduct a group discussion with differing knowledge bases.
Indeed. I am beginning to suspect that you simply do not have as much experience with alternative gaming styles as some of us do. You simply don't know of the many different ways RPGs can be enjoyably played. This (non-pejorative) ignorance of the subject thus makes it difficult for us to discuss with you the validity of other styles.
Of course, you shouldn't feel insulted just because you're not as experienced a gamer as I am. Nothing I've said here should be interpreted as a personal attack.
|
Contributor
|
It is apparent that some have perceived my comments as personal attacks. I apologize if that is the case...i've never intended to anger anyone.
Just to be clear, ACE, I believe this and in fact never felt that you were trying to insult me or anyone else. If I felt that way I probably would have just dropped it.
What I do feel is that you were using a common tactic for winning an argument, or at least awarding yourself the victory in an argument, that usually ends up leaving others feeling insulted. I'm not really angry (like I said right off, I drank my potion of barkskin), but I am frustrated. Mostly because I don't see this as an argument to win as much as a discussion that should be giving insight into different styles of play and why people choose them.